Re: outdated comment in table_tuple_update definition

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: outdated comment in table_tuple_update definition
Date: 2025-02-10 09:31:27
Message-ID: CAExHW5ssNtYX1G4QDkq9FoU222-CubfxdFjyjEty+LT_eas22Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 3:08 AM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2025, at 20:00, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org> wrote:
>
> > I found that the parameter type was changed by commit 19d8e23 (Ignore BRIN indexes when checking for HOT updates), but the comment was not updated. Looks like oversight.
>
> I agree with your analysis, unless objected to I'll apply the attached in
> shortly to update the documentation.

+ * update_indexes - in successful cases this indicates the index types
+ * which require new index entries for this tuple

AFAIK, summarising indexes may not necessarily always need a new
entry. So the following sentence looks more accurate
in successful cases, this indicates the types of indexes (summarising
vs non-summarising) which need an update based on this tuple. The text
in the parenthese would clarify "index types", but if it's too
verbose, it may be omitted.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2025-02-10 09:35:31 Re: should we have a fast-path planning for OLTP starjoins?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2025-02-10 09:15:22 Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication